483 research outputs found

    Interventions for female drug-using offenders

    Get PDF
    Background This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug‐using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. Search methods We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low‐certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low‐certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low‐certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low‐certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low‐certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re‐arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug‐related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow‐up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low‐certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty‐evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD ‐0.02, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low‐certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD ‐0.89, 95% CI ‐4.83 to 3.05; low certainty‐evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT‐CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow‐up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self‐reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low‐certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate‐certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre‐ and post‐release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post‐release; low certainty‐evidence. No adverse effects were reported. Authors' conclusions The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence

    E-learning: you don't always get what you hope for

    Get PDF
    Despite substantial growth in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) throughout western societies, there is much evidence of technology-led innovations within Higher Education (HE) failing to achieve the anticipated transformations in learning and teaching. This paper reviews evidence from research and evaluation studies relating not only to e-learning, but also to wider HE practices. It argues that the use of ICT does not, in itself, result in improved educational outcomes and ways of working. It considers contextual factors that are of greater significance in determining how and why e-learning is used in HE. Students' engagement with e-learning relates to their expectations and conceptions of learning and to assessment demands. Academics need to re-assess their own beliefs and practices concerning teaching and assessment and their impact on the experience of learners. Both teachers and learners need to understand why e-learning activities are to be undertaken and the rewards expected to be derived

    Bio-analytical Assay Methods used in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiretroviral Drugs-A Review

    Get PDF

    Search for leptophobic Z ' bosons decaying into four-lepton final states in proton-proton collisions at root s=8 TeV

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Search for heavy resonances decaying into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in final states with charged leptons, neutrinos, and b quarks

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Search for high-mass diphoton resonances in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV and combination with 8 TeV search

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Search for black holes and other new phenomena in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at root s=13 TeV

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Measurements of differential production cross sections for a Z boson in association with jets in pp collisions at root s=8 TeV

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Measurement of the mass difference between top quark and antiquark in pp collisions at root s=8 TeV

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    Measurement of the Z boson differential cross section in transverse momentum and rapidity in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV

    Get PDF
    We present a measurement of the Z boson differential cross section in rapidity and transverse momentum using a data sample of pp collision events at a centre-of-mass energy s=8 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb-1. The Z boson is identified via its decay to a pair of muons. The measurement provides a precision test of quantum chromodynamics over a large region of phase space. In addition, due to the small experimental uncertainties in the measurement the data has the potential to constrain the gluon parton distribution function in the kinematic regime important for Higgs boson production via gluon fusion. The results agree with the next-to-next-to-leading-order predictions computed with the fewz program. The results are also compared to the commonly used leading-order MadGraph and next-to-leading-order powheg generators. © 2015 CERN for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration
    • 

    corecore